Recently, a San Diego mother, Denise Keller, has filed a class auctioned suit against popular family entertainment center Chuck E. Cheese’s, charging that its games were illegal gambling devices. Her argument runs as such: kids exchange real money for tokens; the tokens are used to play the machines; machines dispense tickets that can be redeemed for prizes, according to the win ratio achieved; this win ratio is born on chance and creates highs and lows experienced by gamblers; therefore Chuck E. Cheese’s should be banned (or at least have some of their games played).

Whether these games operate by chance or skill is purely arbitrary in this case, and is not the issue of this debate. Denise Keller, if not guilty of legal extortion, is guilty of the same offense: gambling. I will argue that by continuing this case, Denise Keller is promoting gambling…

For starters, we may as well just humor ourselves and look towards the definition of gambling in the Merriam-Webster’s Dictionary and Thesaurus. It states “to play a game for money or property” and “to bet on an uncertain outcome”[1]. This alone provides enough for us to bet that Denise Keller is indeed gambling. We aren’t certain who will win this case, and the lawyers are betting that the judge will rule towards them. The law may not be considered to be a game by most people, but in some sense it is “a procedure or strategy for gaining an end”, in the way most games are. What game from Chuck E. Cheese’s isn’t? In both the legal case and the arcade game, there is a stake involved. And often times, a game (in the sense of a children’s game) can be “a physical or mental competition conducted according to rules with the participants in direct opposition to each other”. Like Skee-ball, like the law…

Of course, one might say that the law and a game are merely analogous to each other. Perhaps, but so are ‘pipes’ and ‘arteries’ and we describe both as ‘objects that pump’. Regardless, what is the legal definition of gambling? It is:

“to risk something of value for the chance of winning a prize”[2][3].

And is not Denise Keller risking money, her reputation and even more, her valuable time, in order to win the ultimate prize of this court-game she is playing – her case?

Thus, Denise Keller’s irresponsible actions of participating in a form of legal gambling has not only shamed and damaged her moral case, but it has set a bad moral example for her child. She should be ashamed of herself for involving her child in her exploitive, selfish, empty-headed, opportunist, wide-eyed, child-like, money-grubbing gambling. Thank you.

I accept your debate and look forward to your rebuttal.
I will oppose the following Resolution: Denise Keller, by pursuing her lawsuit against Chuck E. Cheese's, is promoting gambling.
1) I offer the following counter definition, which should be the sole criterion for evaluating what is considered "gambling." This definition is taken from California state law [2]:
""Gambling" means to deal, operate, carry on, conduct, maintain, or expose for play any controlled game."
Controlled game is further delineated by California Penal Code 337j, which outlines specific activities, none of which pertain to filing a lawsuit.
a) Under this definition, Ms. Keller's suit is not an act of gambling.
b) My definition comes from cited legal documents that are relevant to the case at hand. Ms. Keller filed her case in California, where my definition would be the definition used in the court of law.
c) My definition sets clear standards for what is or is not gambling. Pro's definition can be interpreted so that even mundane tasks such as driving to work are considered gambling. After all, isn't going to work a "strategy for gaining an end" "for money or property"? Isnt driving to work placing stakes on an unknown outcome, e.g. will the car break or will there be an accident?
2) Even if Ms. Keller is indeed gambling, this is not the same as "promoting" gambling. Pro must demonstrate that Ms. Keller's lawsuit contributes to the growth of gambling.
MW: to promote is" to contribute to the growth or prosperity of : further"
a) The case brief of Ms. Keller repeatedly assaults the vices of gambling, especially noting its damage to gambler's finances, the addictive nature of gambling, and the illegal nature of machine gambling [3]. Additionally, the law suit brought about by Ms. Keller has prompted national discussion of gambling's vices:
"[The suit says] the games "create the same highs and lows experienced by adults who gamble their paychecks or the mortgage payment."" [4]
This critique of gambling is clearly not in line with the promotion of gambling. Instead, it increases awareness of the dangers of gambling, decreasing the activity's appeal.
b) Participating in an activity does not preclude the possibility of hindering the activity's growth. It is possible to simultaneously engage in an activity while discouraging others from doing the same. By wearing a ridiculous hat I may discourage others from doing so by demonstrating how silly the hat looks and by receiving ridicule from my peers.
c) Participating in an activity does not necessitate the promotion of an activity. It is possible to engage in an activity without having an impact at all on its growth. For instance, I could go shoot a basketball for ten minutes by myself without promoting the activity of basketball in any way.
[1] http://tinyurl.com...
[2] http://tinyurl.com...
[3] http://tinyurl.com...
[4] http://tinyurl.com...

“Even if Ms. Keller is indeed gambling, this is not the same as "promoting" gambling. Pro must demonstrate that Ms. Keller's lawsuit contributes to the growth of gambling.”’Indeed, simply by continuing her case she will contribute to the promoting of gambling. It does not mean that gamble must, in turn, grow because of it.

“Additionally, the law suit brought about by Ms. Keller has prompted national discussion of gambling's vice…This critique of gambling is clearly not in line with the promotion of gambling. Instead, it increases awareness of the dangers of gambling, decreasing the activity's appeal.”Still, this is largely irrelevant. Her intentions and actions need not match to continue her case.

“Participating in an activity does not preclude the possibility of hindering the activity's growth. It is possible to simultaneously engage in an activity while discouraging others from doing the same.”However, the adverse may take place.

“Participating in an activity does not necessitate the promotion of an activity. It is possible to engage in an activity without having an impact at all on its growth.”By the same way that wearing a hat may discourage others from doing so by demonstrating others from doing the same, participating in this case may continue the promotion of illegal gambling. Thank you. 0_o!!!

First, please refer to my first round counter-interpretation based on California State Law, which clearly indicates that the act of filing a lawsuit (regardless of the prospects of financial gains or losses) is not considered gambling. Also extend the reasons to prefer my definition: relevancy to the case at hand and clarity. My counter interpretation was not contested by my opponent, nor were my reasons to prefer my definition.

My opponent's only argument in this round is that by participating in an act of gambling, Ms Keller has "shamed and damaged her moral case, but it has set a bad moral example for her child." If Ms. Keller is not gambling, my opponent has no case. Since my definition of gambling prevails in this round, it is clear that Ms. Keller is not involved in gambling and my opponent has no case. This issue alone is sufficient for the judges of this round to vote Con.

Additionally, my counter-arguments to the claim that by engaging in gambling Ms. Keller is promoting gambling have not been substantively engaged. I hold that in R1 I sufficiently established that participating in an activity is capable of hindering, promoting, or not at all affecting the activity as a whole, depending on the circumstances.

The closest thing to a rebuttal my opponent offers is:

"Indeed, simply by continuing her case she will contribute to the promoting of gambling. It does not mean that gamble must, in turn, grow because of it."

This claim is a logical absurdity given the definition of "promote" offered in R1. This definition was uncontested and so stands in round. To promote is "to contribute to the growth of," so the Pro must demonstrate that the court case in question contributes to the growth of gambling. The Pro has failed to meet this burden and so does not deserve the votes of the judges.

Finally, my opponent claims that the large amount of negative publicity Ms. Keller has brought to the practice of gambling is irrelevant. This publicity is entirely relevant and demonstrates that if anything, Ms. Keller is hindering the practice of gambling, not promoting it.

For these reasons I ask the judges to vote Con.

Thank you to both my opponent and the judges of this round for your time and consideration.

She originally wanted 5 million in damages but recently refiled and dropped the damages claim. Im not sure if that happened after the first round was posted, so I am debating as if the damages claim was involved.

Reasons for voting decision: Clear win by Con for citing the legal definition, which happens to also agree with common sense meaning in the context of the debate. Under Pro's definition a person hiring a lawyer for almost any reason is "gambling."